Christ's Law

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 16:17-18 . . I urge you, brothers, beware of those who cause divisions and
put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep
away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own
appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.

Naïve folk can be characterized as credulous, i.e. easily convinced by slight or
uncertain evidence, viz: non-critical thinkers.

"smooth talk" is the practice of sophistry; defined as a reason or an argument that
sounds correct but at its core is actually false; viz: subtly deceptive reasoning or
argumentation. Sophistry is typically rational, reasonable, and sensible; but the
thing to keep in mind is that faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only
what makes sense to it.

According to Eph 4:11-14 the very reason that Christ endows some of his followers
to speak for him is so that the rest of his followers may have access to true
premises upon which to build their faith and thus achieve the unity for which he
prayed at John 17:20-21.

NOTE: Rom 16:17-18 contains somewhat universal instructions because, with a
little adjustment here and there, they can be incorporated as counseling for just
about every ideology known to man, e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Baha'i,
Protestant, Catholic, Democracy, Communism, Socialism, etc. It's kind of
humorous, in an ironic sort of way, that everybody's ideology warns its adherents
about the dangers of everybody else's ideology.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 1:10 . . I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and
that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Official belief systems-- e.g. the Nicene Creed and/or proprietary church covenants
and statements of faith --are very effective for achieving the unity required by 1Cor
1:10; and should always be imposed upon new people applying for membership in
a local congregation. A church composed of a variety of beliefs and practices isn't a
unified church: it's a forum.

NOTE: I would have to say that after belief in God and His son, the next thing that
church members need to believe in is each other; and if they can't believe in each
other, then I really think they ought to disband. I'm not kidding around about this;
without trust and loyalty a church is just as dysfunctional as any other maladjusted
family.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 1:26 . . Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in
the world's eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you.

In other words; those among the wise, powerful, and wealthy who've been called
weren't called because they're special. They were called because they're sinners, no
different than the rest of us. It's that simple; and they should never forget it.

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise;
God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly
things of this world and the despised things-- and the things that are not-to nullify
the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." (1Cor 1:27-30)

"God alone made it possible for you to be in Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made
Christ to be wisdom itself; he is the one who made us acceptable to God. He made
us pure and holy, and he gave himself to purchase our freedom." (1Cor 1:30-31)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 3:9-15 . .We are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I
laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how
he builds upon it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid,
which is Jesus Christ.

. . . Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones,
wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it,
because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each
man's work. If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive
a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall
be saved, yet so as through fire.

It's easy to mistake the judgment spoken of in that passage for the judgment
depicted at Rev 20:11-15. But there are crucial differences worth noting.

1_ The fire spoken of in 1Cor 3:9-15 burns works whereas that of Rev 20:11-15
burns people.

2_ Builders walk away alive from the fire spoken of in 1Cor 3:9-15. Nobody walks
away alive from the fire spoken of by Rev 20:11-15.

3_ Builders are awarded at the judgment spoken of in 1Cor 3:9-15 whereas the
dead are punished at the judgment spoken of by Rev 20:11-15.

4_ 1Cor 3:9-15 pertains to God's field, God's building; whereas Rev 20:11-15
pertains to folks dead to God.

5_ Builders' substandard works are burned up rather than burned off.

FAQ: What is the meaning of "he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire."

REPLY: It's a depiction of people who waken inside a burning home with barely
enough time to get out; taking nothing with them but whatever they wore to bed.
Their home is destroyed, and all their valuables and all their mementoes; but at
least the occupants themselves are safe, and suffer no harm from the fire.

Take for example a hypothetical builder akin to Mother Teresa. Should it turn out
that her entire five decades of work in India fail to qualify as gold, silver, and/or
precious stones; it will all go up in smoke, so to speak; but she herself, though
walking away empty-handed, would be spared.

NOTE: It is sometimes assumed that 1Cor 3:9-15 is speaking of a Purgatory.
However, Greek words for "purify" and "purge" are nowhere to be found in that
passage; and a note in the current official Catholic Bible-- the 2011 New American
Bible --says: "The text of 1Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the
notion of a purgatory, though it does not envisage this."

If perchance there are Catholics reading this, I should clue them that the non
Biblical materials (foot notes) in the 2011 New American Bible have a nihil obstat
by Reverend Richard L. Schaefer, Censor Deputatus, and an imprimatur by Most
Reverend Jerome Hanus, O.S.B. Archbishop of Duguque.

Nihil Obstat is defined as: The certification by an official censor of the Roman
Catholic Church that a book has been examined and found to contain nothing
opposed to faith and morals

Imprimatur is defined as: Approval of a publication under circumstances of official
Censorship
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 3:18 . . If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he
should become a fool so that he may become wise.

In our age, "wise" would pertain to people high up in finance, education, science,
art, computing, crafts, music, philosophy, politics, etc. Many of those kinds of
people are brilliant and utterly self-reliant.

Well; I can say from personal experience that above-average folks tend to make
very poor Sunday school students because their intelligence gets in the way. If only
they would leave their IQ at the door, even they themselves would be the better for
it because when it comes to spiritual discernment; many of those egg heads are
about as bright as an elementary school kid just starting out in kindergartner in
need of beginning right from square-one and learning some basics; which for the
wise, is very demeaning to say the least.

But nobody arrives from the womb knowing everything; thus the enjoinder:

"Receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls."
(Jas 1:21)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 3:19-21a . . For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the
scriptures say; "God catches those who think they are wise in their own
cleverness." And again; "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are
worthless." So don't take pride in following a particular leader.

Worldly leaders are everywhere. In music they're called influences; which is a
pretty good choice of words because the movers and shakers in this world have a
lot to do with shaping people's opinions. But unfortunately many of those opinions
are thoroughly inappropriate for Christ's followers; especially the ones that
motivate us to be grasping; roughly defined as desiring material possessions
urgently and excessively and often to the point of ruthlessness.

Well; there's no need to be grasping-- instead be patient --because one day we'll
be privileged beyond imagination.

"Everything belongs to you: Paul and Apollos and Peter; the whole world and life
and death; the present and the future. Everything belongs to you, and you belong
to Christ, and Christ belongs to God." (1 Cor 3:21b-23)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 4:1 . . So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ, and as those
entrusted with the mysteries of God.

Big names like Mother Teresa, Charles Spurgeon, and Billy Graham are practically
sacred cows-- but Christian celebrities like those are only human rather than
divine; and be grateful you're not one of them because their responsibility is
proportional.

"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know
that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (Jas 3:1, cf. 1Cor 3:9-15)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 4:5 . . Judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till The Lord comes. He
will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and expose the motives of men's
hearts.

Human nature has a propensity to shower accolades on religious celebrities without
having all the facts.

For example: we now know from Mother Teresa's private letters-- made public by
Father Brian Kolodiejchuk's book "Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light" --that Ms.
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was a nun with so little personal belief in God as to be an
agnostic; and yet for decades everyone the world over thought she was the cat's
meow and the bee's knees: a veritable poster child of piety in thought, word, and
deed. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her public image bore no
resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner being.

The Spirit's corroboration that comes to Christ's followers via Rom 8:16 never
happened for Teresa. As a result, the remarkable nun came to the end of her life
wondering if there really is a God out there; and worried that if perchance there is a
God, He didn't want her in India to begin with; maybe even didn't particularly like
her, and might actually be quite intent upon condemning her.

* To be honest: I just don't know how the Roman Church could proceed with fast
tracking Mother Teresa to sainthood while fully aware of her deplorable spiritual
condition; unless she was just too widely admired, and too big a global figure, not
to.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 5:1-5 . . It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and
immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone
has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned
instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your
midst.

. . . For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already
judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of
our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of
our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of
his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of The Lord Jesus.

Gentiles of course do sleep with their stepmothers on occasion; but the world's
practice of that kind of behavior is more an aberration than a custom.

Well, the Corinthians were treating that man's behavior as if it were a norm, i.e.
they apparently felt that the man's conduct was trivial, undeserving of either
attention or criticism. They must have wondered why Paul was reacting so badly
rather than just "get over it". After all; it's none of his business what goes on
behind closed doors. Had he not heard of the right to privacy? And besides, didn't
the Lord say: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Delivering someone to Satan for the destruction of the flesh just simply means to
cull them from the herd, so to speak. In other words: exclude them from
congregational activities; e.g. worship, Sunday school, and prayer meetings. This is
not as radical as totally breaking off contact with someone; it's purpose is church
discipline rather than the social disconnection practiced by Scientology and the
Jehovah's Witnesses.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 5:6b . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of
dough?

The first few chapters of the book of Revelation list several of Jesus' complaints
about the spiritual condition of specific churches. It's unlikely that every member of
those churches deserved criticism, but Jesus slammed the churches as corporate
bodies rather than individuals. So then if, and/or when, those churches failed to
correct their shortcomings; then the whole church-- the good and the bad --was
taken to task.

"Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact
unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore
celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

. . . I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all
mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or
with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world.

. . . But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he
should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do
with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But
those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among
yourselves." (1Cor 5:7-13)

That's a good argument against church expansion. The bigger a congregation gets,
the more difficult it is for the staff to gauge their sheep's spiritual condition.

Churches can't be expected to police every soul that comes thru their doors, but
they should be expected to keep an eye on those they accept, and those they keep,
on their membership roles because the substandard members have as much
influence upon Jesus' evaluation of their operation as the pious members.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 5:6a . .Your boasting is not good.

The Corinthian church was liberal in its attitudes about intimacy. That's no surprise
considering that particular city's culture in their day and age.

Then, as now, liberals tend to think of themselves as sophisticated and progressive;
and vastly superior to stodgy, inflexible conservatives.

NOTE: An article recently in the Epoch Times shares some of the secrets of a
former KGB agent whose standard plan for moving countries towards communism
includes demoralization. He said that Americans make the task easy because they
were, and are, corrupting themselves on their own; and actually accomplishing the
task much quicker than the KGB could even dream.

America's moral decadence began gaining momentum with the counter culture back
in the 1960s -- it continues to this day and, sort of like the expansion of the
universe, is picking up speed instead of slowing down as might be expected.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 6:1-6 . . If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the
ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints
will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to
judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more
the things of this life!

. . .Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even
men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there
is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But
instead, one brother goes to law against another-and this in front of unbelievers!

Apparently some of the Christians in the church at Corinth let the Sermon On The
Mount go in one ear and out the other.

"But I say unto you: That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and
take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." (Matt 5:39-40)

"Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? As you are going with your
adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may
drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer
throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last
penny." (Luke 12:57-59)

The Lord began his teaching in Luke with the words "Why don't you judge for
yourselves what is right?" In other words; if someone threatens to take you to
court over a tort matter, and you know good and well he's in the right; don't force
him to go to law. Instead, admit to your wrong and settle out of court. According to
The Lord, it’s unrighteous to tie up the courts when you know your own self that
you are the one who's in the wrong. There's just simply no righteous reason why
Christian defendants and plaintiffs can't be their own judge and jury in tort matters.

"Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with
another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves
to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren." (1Cor
6:7-8)

The Greek word translated "defraud" is an ambiguous word with more than one
meaning, and more than one application. The meaning that seems appropriate in
this instance is "deprive".

It works like this: Were I to trip and fall because of a crack in the walk leading up
to the front door of the home of one of my kin; I wouldn't haul them into court over
it because we're related; viz: any injury I might incur by tripping and falling
because of a crack in their walk would be a family matter rather than a legal
matter; and they have a right to be treated by me as family rather than foes. Were
I to sue them for tripping and falling due to a crack in their walk; I would be
depriving them of the lenience that kin have a right to expect from one another.

"We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.
. . We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay
down our lives for the brethren." (1John 3:14-16)

I think it's safe to say that if somebody is comfortable taking a fellow Christian to
court; then they certainly are not prepared to lay down their life for the brethren.

It's sad to see relatives suing each other in court; but it happens all the time. When
the world does it; well, that's to be expected; but when Christians sue each other;
that's dysfunctional.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 6:18 . . Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but
he that commits fornication sins against his own body.

The Greek word for "fornication" is porneia (por-ni'-ah) which doesn't especially
mean pornography; it means harlotry; a term that Webster's defines as sexual
profligacy. Porneia would include things like prostitution (a.k.a. trafficking) adultery,
promiscuity, date sex, free love, shacking up, one-night stands, swingers, wife
swapping, and that sort of thing.

The command is not to walk away from fornication; but to run away from it as if
your very life depends upon putting distance between you and it. The same Greek
word is used at Matt 2:13 where an angel instructed Joseph to flee into Egypt in
order to save his little boy's life.

Fleeing is different than shunning. I think what we're talking about here are the
times when a golden opportunity comes along to mess around with somebody who
is absolutely irresistible. Some people would call that getting lucky; but in God's
estimation, it's getting stupid if you play along and see what happens.

The phrase "sins against his own body" is sort of the same wording as at 1Cor
11:27 where it's said "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of The Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of The Lord."

Some Christians construe 1Cor 11:27 as murder. Well if so, then sinning against
one's own body would be suicide. But actually, what we're talking about here is
gross contempt and disrespect, i.e. sacrilege. In other words; Christian fornicators
are treating their body like a chamber pot instead of a holy vessel; and all the while
dragging God's Spirit into situations that He finds extremely unsavory.

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you,
whom you have received from God?" (1Cor 6:19)

"Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of
redemption." (Eph 4:30)

They're also dragging Christ into shame and disgrace too.

"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take
the members of Christ and unite them with an harlot? Never! Do you not know that
he who unites himself with an harlot is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two
will become one flesh." (1Cor 6:14-16, cf. Gen 2:18-24)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 6:20 . . For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Christ's crucifixion and resurrection ransomed his followers from facing justice and
the second death in the scene depicted at Rev 20:11-15. That was a mighty big
favor, and I should think it earns him the right to expect a favor in return. All things
considered; conducting ourselves in ways that honor God is really not too much to
ask seeing as how it was He who donated His heir apparent's life to pay the price
for people's ransom. (1Pet 1:18-19)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:2 . . To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband.

The above is especially pertinent in 2022 America. Fornication is everywhere: on a
pandemic scale. It's in our music, in our schools, in the White House, in our offices,
on our televisions, in our movies, in our novels, and in our conversations. People
are even sleeping together on their very first dates.

Even Congressmen, Senators, and US Presidents are indulging in forbidden love.
The previous Governor of Oregon was openly shacking up with a girlfriend.

According to the 2020 World Almanac and Book of Facts, there was a total of
3,855,500 live births in 2017. Of those, 1,534,000 were illegitimate (a.k.a. out of
wedlock) which means that nearly 40% of 2017's live births were the result of
immoral activity. Back in 1970, the ratio was only 10%.

This country is in a state of moral decadence, and steadily becoming more and
more like the ancient city of Pompeii just prior to its destruction by the volcanism of
Mt. Vesuvius.

It's important to note that 1Cor 7:2 makes it okay to marry for pleasure. My
childhood religion taught me that it's a sin to marry for any other reason except
procreation and that couples who decide to remain childless are living in sin. They
get that from Genesis 1:28 where it's says: "God blessed them; and God said to
them: Be fruitful and multiply". But that is clearly a blessing rather than a law. It's
always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or empowerment unless clearly
indicated otherwise.

Ironically the original purpose of marriage was neither pleasure nor procreation; it
was companionship. (Gen 2:18)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:3-4 . . Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and
likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not authority of her own
body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not authority of his
own body, but the wife.

What we're talking about in that verse is the principle of private property in
marriage that was established right from the get-go.

"And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be
called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
(Gen 2:23-24

There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that passage
comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah. The possessive pronoun
"his" identifies an 'ishshah as somebody's wife. The same grammar works for
husbands too, for example:

"And Leah said: God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband
dwell with me, because I have born him six sons." (Gen 30:20)

The Hebrew word for "husband" in that verse is 'iysh which is a nondescript word
for males. The possessive pronoun "my" identifies a male as somebody's husband.

So Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man. They quite
literally owned each other: consequently they had a right to all that a conjugal
relationship with each other implies.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:5 . . Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,
that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that
Satan not tempt you by means of your lack of self control.

I think it goes without saying that spouses have an inalienable right to expect their
need for companionship to be satisfied in marriage; and if one, or both, is feeling
lonely and marginalized at home, then they will be vulnerable outside the home
when someone comes along with whom they click.

I heard a story some time ago about a rather conniving Christian woman who
wanted a divorce from her Christian husband; but seeing as how God only allows
death or adultery to dissolve the marital bond; she deliberately began shunning her
husband in order to force him to think about finding an alternative; and when he
did; she proceeded to divorce him on the grounds of unfaithfulness. That way, in
her mind's eye, she was the victim and he the villain. (chuckle) What people won't
do to circumvent the laws of God.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:8-9 . . Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to
stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry,
for it is better to marry than to burn.

Paul said it's good to remain single; but he didn't say it's best.

The Greek word translated "burn" basically means to kindle, to ignite, to glow,
and/or to be inflamed. I seriously doubt Paul meant to convey the thought that the
believers who lacked self control at Corinth were in grave danger of the flames of
Hell since he had already assured them in 1Cor 6:9-11 that they were washed,
sanctified, and justified in the name of The Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul was one of those kinds of men with a very low-powered libido. But not
everyone is like him; nor is everyone cut out to live alone.

Webster's defines "celibacy" as (1) the state of not being married, (2) abstention
from sexual intercourse, and (3) abstention by vow from marriage. Celibacy then,
isn't limited to zero carnal activity; it includes zero marriage; even platonic unions.

Not long ago, a Catholic priest here in Oregon quit the priesthood after serving
more than 30 years in order to get married because he couldn't stand being alone
anymore. He wasn't especially looking to get naked with somebody, he just wanted
a companion; which is exactly how normal guys are designed.

"The Lord God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary" (Gen 2:18)

The problem with a vow of celibacy is that although it may hinder a priest from
getting married, it does nothing to prevent him from pining for a female
companion. 1Cor 7:9 should suffice to silence the mouths of ascetics who preach
it's holy to abstain from every form of earthly pleasure; and also the mouths of
those who preach it's a sin to marry solely to obtain someone to sleep with.

NOTE: Typical wedding vows are unconditional, i.e. couples, as a rule, don't
promise to love each other in proportion to the amount of love they get from the
other. It would be educational for couples to review their vows now and again to
see just how conscientious they've been in complying with the unconditional
portions of their vows.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:10-11a . . Unto the married I command-- yet not I, but The Lord --let not
the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried,
or be reconciled to her husband.

Divorcing a spouse for any cause other than infidelity is unacceptable. (Mat 5:32)
However, separation is a different issue and is sometimes essential for the safety
and welfare of abused women.

"And let not the husband put away his wife." (1Cor 7:11b)

I think we may assume the above comments apply to husbands as well as to their
wives.

You know, we really can't expect a man to continue living with a woman who
routinely slams the poor guy with demeaning ridicule and denigrating remarks
and/or constantly rakes him over the coals with relentless fault-finding and cruel
sarcasm, and maybe even pours scalding water on her husband while he's sleeping
or burns his face with a steam iron.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● 1Cor 7:12-13 . . If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased
to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband
that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

It's not all that unusual for marriages to start off on common ground, and then
later on to become religiously divided; like for instance when one of the spouses
gets converted at a Luis Palau crusade, or both start out as Christians and one
switches over to Buddhism. As long as the situation doesn't cause intolerable
friction in the home, the couple should stay together.

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they
are holy." (1Cor 7:14-15)

According to Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9, divorce and remarriage are holy only if one
of the spouses has been unfaithful. So; if a believing spouse divorces their
unbelieving spouse solely on the grounds of religious differences, and remarries;
then as far as the New Testament is concerned, any children produced in the
second marriage will be illegitimate.
_